On 1/11/22, 10:06 AM, "John Naylor" wrote:
> I pushed this with one small change -- I felt the comment didn't need
> to explain the warning message, since it now simply matches the coding
> more exactly. Also, v5 was a big enough change from v4 that I put
> Nathan as the first author.
Thanks!
On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 10:51 PM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 12/7/21, 5:21 PM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 4:17 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> >> I agree with Tom. I would just s/server/backend/ (as per the
> >> attached) and call it a day.
> >
> > Thanks. v5 patch
On 12/7/21, 5:21 PM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 4:17 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> I agree with Tom. I would just s/server/backend/ (as per the
>> attached) and call it a day.
>
> Thanks. v5 patch looks good to me.
I've marked the commitfest entry as
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 4:17 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 11/18/21, 8:27 PM, "Bharath Rupireddy"
> wrote:
> > Here's the v4 patch with the above changes, the output looks like [1].
> > Please review it further.
>
> I agree with Tom. I would just s/server/backend/ (as per the
> attached) and
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 5:01 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
> The following is what I made up in my mind after looking at other
> existing messages, like [1] and the review comments:
> errmsg("cannot send signal to postmaster %d", pid, --> the process
> is postmaster but the caller isn't allowed
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 12:30 AM Euler Taveira wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, at 4:27 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
>
> As there is some interest shown in this thread at [1], I'm attaching a
> new v3 patch here. Please review it.
>
> I took a look at this patch. I have a few comments.
Thanks a
Justin Pryzby writes:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 03:59:59PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> I took a look at this patch. I have a few comments.
>>
>> + ereport(WARNING,
>> + (errmsg("signalling postmaster with PID %d is not allowed", pid)));
>>
>> I would say "signal postmaster PID 1234 is not
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 03:59:59PM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, at 4:27 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > As there is some interest shown in this thread at [1], I'm attaching a
> > new v3 patch here. Please review it.
> I took a look at this patch. I have a few comments.
>
>
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021, at 4:27 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> As there is some interest shown in this thread at [1], I'm attaching a
> new v3 patch here. Please review it.
I took a look at this patch. I have a few comments.
+ ereport(WARNING,
+ (errmsg("signalling postmaster with PID %d is not
On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 3:46 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 5:15 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > pg_terminate_backend and pg_cancel_backend with postmaster PID produce
> > "PID is not a PostgresSQL server process" warning [1], which
> > basically implies that
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 8:05 AM torikoshia wrote:
> > I have not gone through that thread though. Is there any way we can
> > detect those child processes(stats collector, sys logger) that are
> > forked by the postmaster from a backend process? Thoughts?
>
> I couldn't find good ways to do that,
On 2021-03-16 20:51, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:23 AM torikoshia
wrote:
On 2021-03-07 19:16, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 5:15 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
>>
>> pg_terminate_backend and pg_cancel_backend with postmaster PID produce
>> "PID
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:23 AM torikoshia wrote:
>
> On 2021-03-07 19:16, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 5:15 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> pg_terminate_backend and pg_cancel_backend with postmaster PID produce
> >> "PID is not a PostgresSQL server
On 2021-03-07 19:16, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 5:15 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
pg_terminate_backend and pg_cancel_backend with postmaster PID produce
"PID is not a PostgresSQL server process" warning [1], which
basically implies that the postmaster is not a
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 5:15 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> pg_terminate_backend and pg_cancel_backend with postmaster PID produce
> "PID is not a PostgresSQL server process" warning [1], which
> basically implies that the postmaster is not a PostgreSQL process at
> all. This is a bit
Hi,
pg_terminate_backend and pg_cancel_backend with postmaster PID produce
"PID is not a PostgresSQL server process" warning [1], which
basically implies that the postmaster is not a PostgreSQL process at
all. This is a bit misleading because the postmaster is the parent of
all PostgreSQL
16 matches
Mail list logo
